Contax 139Q Lens recommendations

<p>Last week I read JDM's post on the Contax 139 Quartz camera and I think I fell in love. With the camera that is, not with JDM (he's a little crotchety for my taste). Anyway, all humor aside, I picked one up on Ebay for a really decent price and it is an even better looking camera in person than it is in the pictures and, it is in perfect working condition. It is currently the only SLR that I own that has an AE mode and is battery dependent (everyone should own at least on right) but, at least it can be used as a manual exposure camera as well.<br />It came with a Tamron 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 lens, and of course it needed light seals and new covering. I have replaced the light seals with Jon Goodman's products and am awating an embossed leather kit in Contax black from Morgan Shephard. I did like the look of the red covering that JDM used but, being the conservative type that I am, I felt that I had to go with black.<br />Now, I feel like this camera deserves a Carl Zeiss lens but, would like to hear some recommendations before I make a purchase. I am looking for a "normal" lens and am leaning towards the 45mm f/2.8 Tessars, not only because of the small size but also because of the price. There are however some 50mm Planar lenses for just a little more money and am wondering if there is enough difference in lenses to make it worth the added expense. I also can't help but think a Tessar will do anything that my skill level can handle (probably more for that matter), and maybe a Yashica would be just as good (and much cheaper). <br />As always, any advice would be well considered.</p>

<p>The main advantage of the 45mm Tessar is compactness. It does deliver excellent image quality, especially from f4 on. The 50mm Planars (f1.7 or f1.4) are also excellent lenses and will be easier to focus. Can't speak from the f1.4, but the f1.7 sacrifices a bit of wide open performance for superior performance at mid apertures. That was based on a test report so individual performance may vary. I seem to remember also seeing a test for a lot of f1.4 lenses, but don't remember how the Planar stacked up against the competition. Again, test reports are not infallible.<br>

Bottom line: I have the 45mm Tessar and the 50mm f1.7 Planar. I find both to be good performers. IIRC, the 50mm f1.4 Planar was improved somewhat near the end of the production of manual focus Contax lenses. I will try to find the Popular Photo magazine that reported this. I don't think it was a redesign, but rather a tweaking. Any Contax experts that know otherwise will hopefully provide corrections.<br>

When my family had a camera shop we sold the 139 and 137 as well as the 50mm f1.7 Planar. At the time the f1.4 was too pricey for most of our customers. Among Yashicas we sold, the most popular lens was the ML 50mm f1.7. We had one 50mm f1.4 ML in stock, but returned it because their was a bubble in one of the elements.</p>

<p>crotchety? crotchety!<br>

If you care to spend the money, the obvious choice is to start with the Planar 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>The 50mm Yashica ML lenses, however, are good and they are considerably less expensive while you're saving for Zeiss.</p>

<p>All in good fun JDM. Thanks for the input. People are pretty proud of their Planar 50mm f1.4 lenses though aren't they? I was thinking more of the 50mm f1.7 when I said "for just a little more money". They practically give the Yashica's away in comparison.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comparisons Mike. I will keep the Yashica ML 50 1.7 in mind. BTW I meant to say Morgan Sparks for the leather kit instead of Morgan Shephard.</p>

<p>Where I live (UK), the 45mm Tessar tends to go for more than the f/1.7 P50. I paid £100 for the Tessar and around £70 for the 1.7 Planar, though I've seen the Planar for less. The f/1.4 tends to go for 50% to 100% more, depending on whether it's an AE or MM. The Planar is a tad sharper than the Tessar (well, that's why it's a Planar), but the Tessar has a lovely look. It's also incredibly compact. </p>

<p>The Yashica f/1.7 50ML is superb, and often goes for silly money. (As I have most lenses in the ML/MC range, I no longer care if the secret of their under-rating gets out and demand prices start to rise.) The f/2 50mm is a surprisingly good performer, and if you want an extra stop or so, keep an eye out for the f/1.4, which is excellent. Prices vary on the day, as so often with eBay, though I've seen the f/1.4 ML go for amounts close to an f/1.7 Planar. You are more likely to get lucky, however, so if you see an ML f/1.4 at a good price, knock him to the ground and wrench it from him before somebody else beats you to it.</p>

<p>The ML lenses are not speed demons. With the exception of the 50mm lenses, the fastest aperture in the others is f/2.8. The 28mm is outstanding, and the 35mm (I love this focal length, though it's not so much in fashion these days as a wide) is a peach.</p>

<p>Alex is right. The CZs are great, but the MLs are already so good that in going for a CZ you are probably chasing a quality difference that you will hardly be able to detect.</p>

<p>That said, the 50/1.7 is marvelous. The Distagons are great but their prices are totally out of hand, maybe because of EOS users. The teles are not as well regarded and tend to be better priced. I have the 135/3.5 and the 300/4, which are said to be among the poorer performers but are certainly good enough for me. My ML 200/4 performs well enough that I have never seriously considered replacing it with a Zeiss.</p>

 

<p>I'd also remind everyone that, while they are not the lenses to 'display' the Contax 139Q or RTS with, there are some really excellent lenses from other makers that are of real interest if you use this camera as a shooter.</p>

<p>Also, getting a C/Y mount lens is not a dead end in terms of use -- with inexpensive adapters they work beautifully as manual, stop-down lenses on Canon EOS cameras (both film and digital). Unfortunately, lots of people have figured this out, and I think it may be partially responsible for the high prices they sometimes bring.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I got my Vivitar Qdos anaglyphic 3-D lens for a bargain price because it was in a C/Y mount rather than Nikon. I don't think that would happen nowadays.</p>

<p>I'm brand new to Contax as I just got an Rx. I did not have any C/Y lenses, Zeiss or otherwise. Fortunately, the local pro shop that has a good amount of used gear had a Panagor 24/2.5 for $13! It's now on my Contax and I'm having great fun with it. Will see how sharp it is when I get the Provia back.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone for your help. I think I have found a ML50 1.7 that will work just fine. A CZ lens would be nice but, for the money, I think the Yashica will far surpass anything that I am capable of doing with it.</p>

<p>How about Yashica 35~70 3.5~4.8. It is also compact and great for daily useage.</p>

<p>Good call Tom.</p>

<p>You should also be aware that C/Y cameras adapt very well to M42 lenses because they have almost exactly the same register distance. So the adapters are simple rings with no spacers, they cost just a few dollars, but work well. </p>

<p>JDM is right about mounting C/Y lenses to EOS cameras. I don't know why anyone would mount one to an EOS film camera since there is no film EOS that, when limited to manual focus and stop-down metering, is anywhere near as good as several Contax cameras that can be had much cheaper; but pixel EOSs are another matter and well worth the trouble.</p>

<p>As for third-party lenses, I've been using a pair of Tokina RMC zooms, 28-80 and 80-200, for many years as my traveling-light, too-lazy-to-pack-a-bunch-of-primes-today lenses and they have turned in very acceptable results. </p>

<p>One sleeper Yashica ML lens that you can get virtually free is the 42-75/3.5-4.5. This came as the kit lens on a lot of Yashica FX bodies including the first one I got. For 29 years I've been hesitating to take it out because of its slow speed and puny zoom range but when I do, I'm always pleased with the pictures.</p>

 

<p>Go for the classic three-lens kit, consisting of one of the 50mm Planars (F1.4 or 1.7), the 2.8/28 Distagon and the 2.8/85 Sonnar, and you'll never regret it. The 2.8/45 Tessar is nice, but Planars are more versatile, much better made and a lot more comfortable to use, so mine usually stays at home. As for Yashica lenses, the better Yashica standard lenses (especially the 1.4/50 ML) are not much cheaper than their Carl Zeiss counterparts, Distagons are considerably better than Yashica offerings (though most are also very good), and the 85 mm Sonnar has no equivalent in the Yashica line-up. If I were to select three Yashica lenses to replace my Zeiss glass, I'd take the 2.8/28, 1.7/50 and <em></em>2.8/135 C, all with ML coating.</p><div></div>

<p>Well, I ended up winning an Ebay auction for a CZ Planar 50mm f/1.7 for under $50.00. The seller said the diaphram didn't work but, his explanation didn't really seem to make sense to me so, I am hoping he just didn't understand how it worked. I also picked up the Yashica ML 50mm f/2.0 for $6.50. I don't think I got hurt any on either of them.</p>

<p>You're on a winner. Fred's classic trio suggestions for CZ and YML lenses are both spot on. I'm inordinately fond of the 35mm lenses in each marque, but the 28mm wides are belters (UK for crackingly good). The 2.8/85 Sonnar is quite a compact lens, hardly any bigger than the 50mm.</p>

<p>Sobing's suggestion of the Yashica 35-70 is a nice one. I'm pleasantly surprised by how often this seemingly unambitious zoom range caters for so much of my subject matter interests. It's not fast, but it's compact and rather good. I liked the range so much that I got the CZ cousin, the Vario-Sonnar, but that's massive by comparison, and around ten times the price.</p>

<p>Yasica ML 24mm/2.8 + Zeiss 35mm/2.8 + Zeiss 85mm/2.8.</p>

<p>Happy Sailing Tom.. you seem to be on your way.... Plenty of MLs here and one Zeiss!</p>